SPSO Individual Decisions

C, a council tenant, complained that the council had failed to replace their kitchen, which was outdated and in a state of disrepair, and their windows, which were aluminium framed, did not have working vents, and as such were promoting the growth of mould. C gave up the tenancy due to concerns about the condition of the property, the potential health impact, and their frustrations with the delays. C complained that the council remedied both longstanding issues very shortly after, to allow the property to be re-let. C also complained that the council’s complaints response was inaccurate. The council had stated that C’s kitchen was due to be replaced, however, that there had been a backlog due in part to the pause in all but essential works during the pandemic. They said that when C moved out the kitchen was replaced by a team whose role was to prepare tenancies to be re-let, who had a different caseload and worked to different timescales. The council stated that C’s windows had been replaced as part of a broader programme of window and door replacements. They said that this had been communicated to C earlier in the year, and that the work had not been brought forward because the tenancy had been vacated. We found that a referral had been made for a new kitchen to be installed approximately a year prior to C moving out. It was also evident that the council had engaged with C regarding the condition of the windows, and that they had instructed a contractor to survey the windows and to make minor repairs. It was communicated to C on a number of occasions that the windows were due to be replaced and a survey had been carried out in preparation. It was also apparent that C’s property had been prioritised as part of the scheme. As the council had taken steps to investigate these issues and make the necessary referrals and preparations, acknowledging the impact of COVID-19 and the council’s discretion with respect to planning large scale works, overall, we did not consider

C complained that the council unreasonably failed to assess their housing application in accordance with their policies and procedures. C and their partner had two children and shared their bedroom with the youngest child. C submitted a request for rehousing. The council awarded C a priority band 2 (with 1 being the highest and 4 the lowest). C then submitted medical information regarding their mental health to support their application for rehousing. However, the council advised C that they did not meet the criteria for a band 1 priority and that their current award of band 2 was correct and in line with the allocation policy. C submitted an appeal, along with a further supporting letter from their mental health nurse. The council responded stating C’s current band 2 status was deemed appropriate and in line with the established policy guidelines. We found that the council’s position was not in line with the allocation policy. We were concerned by the council’s statement that band 2 was correct, that there would be no band 1 award on the basis of mental health and that they had been applying this reasoning consistently. Their policy states that Band 1 is awarded to those applicants whose home is causing significant problems due to a physical, medical, or mental health problem or disability. We also found that C did not receive timely responses from the council. Their responses were delayed and C had to chase several times for a response. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaint.

C complained to the council that they had unlawfully carried out repairs to the communal roof and chimney of a block of properties in which C owned a flat by not seeking permission first. C said they had not received a letter which the council said that they had posted advising of the intended works. C also questioned the council's decision to categorise the repair works as an emergency. C said that the council should have notified other owners when water penetrated the council owned property originally , and before the repair work was carried out. The council said The Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 allowed for initial emergency repairs to be completed without the need to consult with other owners. As the contractor subsequently recommended a full roof replacement and chimney removal, the council gave the other owners the opportunity to obtain their own quotes for the work required. As no response was received from C to the letter advising them of the intended works, the work was completed and C was liable for their share of the costs. We found that it was reasonable for the council to categorise water ingress as emergency work and carry out temporary repairs. However, it was less reasonable to continue to categorise the repairs as emergency work after this, noting that the council did not request a survey until the following year. Having made a temporary repair, the council could have used the time available to consult the other owners to obtain a properly made scheme decision in accordance with the legislation. We also found that there was unreasonable delay in advising the other owners about the extent of the works which were required, and the associated cost. We thereby upheld the complaint We provided feedback on complaints handling, noting that the council may wish to consider reminding relevant staff about the importance of keeping complainants informed about any delay with the consideration of their complaint, and also about the council’s normal practice of p

C complained about the service provided by the council's social work service in connection with their child (A), who resided with their other parent. C was unhappy with the way the council facilitated contact between them and A, as well as C's other children and A. We took independent advice from a social worker. For the period of time we considered, we found that the social work service should have engaged with C more proactively in relation to contact with A. We did not find any issues with the way the council managed contact between A and their siblings. On balance, we upheld C’s complaint.

C is the owner of a 'four-in-a-block' flat and the other three properties in the block are owned by the council. The council undertook a programme of external works in C's local area to upgrade the properties that they owned. The council told C that the works were required and C's share of the cost would be £14,127.44. C felt that the amount they were expected to pay was too high. C told the council that they did not consent to the works proceeding. C asked for the option of their property being excluded from the works as C felt other homeowners had been given this option. The council said that they carried out a consultation and that C had the opportunity to vote against the works, provide their own quotes, and appeal the decision to proceed. The council gave C extra time to appeal against their decision. No appeal was submitted to the courts and the council proceeded with the works. C complained that, despite their objections, the works went ahead, that the council did not explain what they meant when they mentioned C's title deeds, that the council appeared to have an inconsistent approach, and that they communicated unreasonably with C. We found that the council took reasonable action in line with the title deeds and their own procedures. Whilst it appeared some other properties in the area had not had works completed, we did not find evidence to suggest that the council had an inconsistent approach. The way in which the council made the decision to proceed with works was reasonable. We also found that, whilst there were two occasions where the council failed to respond to C and one where the response was sent to a councillor, in general, the council communicated reasonably. They explained the process, provided additional advice on where to find financial support, directed C to seek legal advice, and extended the timescale for C to submit an appeal to the court if they wished. On balance, we found that the council's communication with C was reasonable.

C complained about the council after being issued with a number of warnings against their tenancy for antisocial behaviour. C said that the reports of antisocial behaviour were false accusations made by a number of neighbours motivated by discrimination. They told us that the council had unreasonably accepted corroboration between the neighbours, who were friends, but would not accept corroboration from C's parents for their counter allegations. On investigation, we found that the council had a reasonable evidence base to support their decisions. We considered that the council could show that they had considered all of the evidence and circumstances in reaching the decisions to issue warnings and that these were therefore decisions that were reasonably within their discretion to make. As such, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202101483 as a PDF (24.1 KB) Updated: January 19, 2022

C complained to the council but did not receive a response until two years later. We found that the council failed to acknowledge the complaint within the timeline as set out by the Model Complaints Handling Procedure. The council failed to update C while they were waiting for the council’s response, and the length of time it took for the council to provide a response was excessive and unreasonable. As such, we upheld this complaint. Due to the learning and actions taken by the council after they issued their response we did not make recommendations as appropriate action had already been taken. Related reading View Decision Report 201911424 as a PDF (23.95 KB) Updated: October 20, 2021

C complained about the school's handling of concerns they raised about the impact on their child of ongoing safety incidents within the classroom. C said they were not given clear information about the safety incidents, the applicable policy or the action being taken to address these, and the school did not put in place a risk assessment until after they complained. C also raised concerns about the school and the council's handling of their complaint. The head teacher met with C to discuss the matter and upheld C's complaint. The school offered to put in place a number of measures aimed at supporting C's child, but did not share information on other action that had been, or was being, taken in response to their concerns, due to concerns about the confidentiality of other pupils. When C escalated the complaint to the second stage of the complaints procedure, the council investigated the school's handling of the complaint, and did not uphold C's concerns about this. The council also told C that no information would be shared about action taken in response to the safety concerns they had raised earlier, as this was confidential. We found that the school should have taken action earlier in response to the safety concerns C raised (rather than waiting until C complained). We noted that the school had already apologised for this. We also found that the school should have kept C and other parents better informed about serious incidents affecting their children, in line with the school's policy on promoting positive behaviour. We upheld this complaint. In relation to complaint handling, we found that the council's response should have set out their position on the original complaint (not just the complaint handling), and the investigation should have involved checking relevant records, such as records of safety incidents and correspondence, and referred to the relevant policy. We upheld this complaint. However, we also noted some aspects of good practice in the co

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably installed bollards at the front of a block of flats. The council said this had been done to address inconsiderate parking due to concerns about emergency service vehicle access in the event of a major emergency. The bollards were locked in place, but keys had been provided to the ambulance service and fire service. Mr C said that the keys were never used and that vulnerable residents were now having to walk a significant distance to access ambulances or taxis. Mr C also complained that the resident's association had not been consulted. We found no evidence that the emergency services had raised specific concerns about the installation of the bollards or their use. The installation had been carried out under the council's permitted development rights and no planning permission was required. The council were, therefore, entitled to install the bollards. The council were not obliged to consult with the residents' association. The council had acknowledged that it would have been courteous to inform the association of their intentions and had apologised for this, which was a reasonable and proportionate response to Mr C's concerns. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201806572 as a PDF (24.29 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his clients, who are the residents of a housing development. During an inspection, an environmental regulator found that the sewage from the development was not discharging to the authorised location. The residents were faced with the cost of carrying out works to fix this. Mr C raised concerns that the council had failed to meet their obligations under the relevant building standards regulations, as they issued a completion certificate for the housing development without checking that the sewage outlet discharged to the authorised location. We took independent advice from a building standards adviser. We found that the council was only responsible for the development's drainage system up to the point that it connected to the development's private sewage treatment plant. We found that the sewage outlet was solely a matter for the environmental regulator. We found that the council appropriately told the developers that they would need to get the regulator's consent for the sewage outlet and that they would need to comply with the conditions set by the regulator in that consent. We found that it was reasonable the council issued a completion certificate without checking or confirming the location of the sewage outlet, as they had no responsibility to do so. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201707785 as a PDF (23.9 KB) Updated: March 20, 2019

Mr C complained that the social work department unreasonably failed to act when he made reports of risk to his children, and that their arrangements for him to have access to his children were unreasonable. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that in relation to the council's response to Mr C's reports of risk to his children, whilst they had been responsive to these reports and had taken reasonable action in the majority of instances, on one instance they had changed their plans for following up a report without recording the reasons why. We further found that on one occasion a discussion between staff in which decisions were made regarding action to be taken hadn't been recorded; and that there were some delays in signing off on a child protection case conference record and implementing one of the actions agreed at the case conference. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. In relation to the council's arrangements for Mr C to have access to his children, we found that the council had reasonably assessed Mr C and his children, encouraged Mr C to suggest activities, and ensured they had enough notice from all parties for contact to go ahead. We found that the council's handling of this matter was reasonable and, therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Ms C complained that the council failed to reasonably consider her personal circumstances when determining her request to tarmac a grass space near her home. Ms C said that the existing layout was difficult for her to access as a wheelchair user and that the council's refusal led her to pay for a section of the pavement outside her home to be tarmacked at her own expense. The council refused to reimburse Ms C for this work on the grounds that the street is a designated shared space which means the street layout is shared equally between pedestrians and motor vehicles. The council held the view that an individual assessment of Ms C's needs was not required and they confirmed that the ramp in the road that Ms C needed to cross to leave her street was within the allowed specifications set out in the relevant regulations. Ms C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us. We took independent advice from an adviser who specialises in equal opportunities and diversity. We found that the council had appropriately considered that Ms C's street was a shared space. However, we noted that Ms  C clearly requested assistance in her application for minor works and we considered that the council should have provided her with the appropriate advice at that stage - that social work could conduct an assessment of need to establish if support or adaptations were required. We concluded that the council should have fully assessed Ms C's circumstances under the Public Sector Equality Duty and the Equality Act 2010. The council failed to recognise these concerns and made a decision that Ms C did not require a reasonable adjustment to be considered without properly assessing her individual circumstances. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Mr C complained that he was unreasonably charged for additional works he had not agreed to, or been advised of, following on from his initial agreement for smaller works to be carried out by the council to his property. Mr C said that the increased charge was unreasonable. We found that, having decided to charge Mr C for the additional works, the council did not follow their own procedures in how they authorised, inspected and charged for the repair or communicated with Mr C. There was also a delay of six months after completing the works before the council queried the increased invoice from the council's building maintenance division, and invoiced Mr C. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained about reinstatement works at the site of a former opencast mine. Mr C accesses his home via a road that runs adjacent to the site and he complained that the council unreasonably considered a development to be permitted when it did not satisfy the correct requirements. When Mr C first raised his concerns, the council maintained their position about the planning status of the land, until the council reversed their view two years later. Mr C also complained that they failed to consider the risk of flooding when granting the works permitted development status. He said that access to his home was sometimes impossible as flood water remained on his access road and did not drain away as previously. Finally, Mr C felt that the council's handling of his complaint was unreasonable. We took independent advice from a chartered town planner. We found that the council had been presented with sufficient information around the time of Mr C's initial concerns to determine that planning consent was required. Instead they determined that the proposed works constituted permitted development. It was only two years later after protracted correspondence that they accepted there had been an error. Therefore, a number of processes and consultations, which should have occurred, did not. We considered the fact that, had the works been properly assessed, the council should have explicitly considered the use of their powers in relation to flooding. We also found that Mr C had been given incorrect information regarding the role of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). In dealing with Mr C's complaint we found that there was very extensive correspondence; however, there had been some delays in the council responding and Mr C and he was not always kept updated. For these reasons, we upheld all of Mr C's complaints.

Mr and Mrs C applied to be kinship carers for a child related to them. A kinship care assessment was produced by the social work department and it recommended that Mr and Mrs C should not be approved as kinship carers. Mr and Mrs C complained that the content of the report and the recommendation made was unreasonable. Mr and Mrs C were unhappy with the council's response and brought their complaint to us. We took independent advice from a social worker who highlighted that the term 'person of concern' had been used to describe Mrs C within the document and that this was unreasonable. The council acknowledged this was unreasonable as it was not a term they would normally use. While there was issues with precise wording, we found that the information included in the document and the recommendation made was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201702040 as a PDF (10.97 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of his client (Miss A). Miss A had complained to the council that they should have allowed her an extension to her tenancy to allow her to clear out her belongings when she was vacating her property. She had also complained that the council did not properly charge her for the rechargeable works they carried out to clear the property after she vacated. She also complained that the council coerced her to agree to leaving her belongings and did not disclose to her how much she would be charged for the removal of her belongings. In their response to Miss A's complaints, the council confirmed that they had extended Miss A's tenancy to allow her time to remove her belongings and that she had not made them aware of any exceptional circumstances to grant a further extension. They did not consider they had coerced Miss A to agree to leave her belongings and they believed that the works carried out to clear her property were properly incurred given the condition of the property at the time. They did, following an inspection of the invoiced works, reduce the amount due by Miss A as they identified works that she should not be responsible for. Miss A was not happy with this response and Mr C subsequently brought her complaints to us. We established that the council had provided Miss A with an extension of two weeks to her tenancy. We did not find any record of Miss A noting any exceptional circumstances to the council at the time, indeed Miss A had communicated to the council confirming the dates by which she would remove her belongings. On this basis, we concluded that the council had provided Miss A with an extension to her tenancy and had acted reasonably in the circumstances. With respect to the rechargeable repairs carried out by the council, we saw evidence that the property was inspected and that Miss A was aware of the works she was to carry out prior to leaving. We were satisfied that ph

Mr C's daughter (Miss A) accepted a tenancy from the council. She recalled having been advised that a garden area was for her sole use. When she approached her neighbours over their use of the garden area they told her that they had access and use rights to the area. Miss A sought clarification from the council about this. The council confirmed that the neighbours had some rights to access and use the garden area. Mr C complained to the council that this was contrary to what his daughter had been told when she was offered the tenancy. He further complained that the time the council had taken to clarify matters had been unreasonable. The council told Mr C that their recollection was that Miss A had been aware that there was no certainty over the use of the garden area when she accepted the tenancy and that they had apologised for the unreasonable delay in providing clarification. Mr C was unhappy with the council's response and he raised his complaints with us. We found that there was no clear, objective evidence of what Miss A was told before she accepted the tenancy and, consequently, we did not uphold the first aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we found that the time taken to provide clarification had been unreasonable, and we also found no evidence that an apology had been given to Miss A. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

The funeral service for Mrs C's late mother (Mrs A) was delayed due to earlier services over-running. However, Mrs C said that Mrs A's family and the other people attending the funeral were not pro-actively made aware of the delay and that they were not advised that there was nowhere sheltered for them to sit whilst they waited after they vacated their cars. The council responded to Mrs C's complaints about these matters, but did not accept that they bore any responsibility for the delay or that any further action by them was required. Mrs C brought her complaints to us. She complained that the council did not act reasonably to minimise the delay to the funeral, that they did not advise the family or the other people attending the funeral of the likelihood of a delay and that they did not respond reasonably to her complaints. We found that the council could not have acted to minimise the delay once it emerged, so we did not uphold this part of the complaint. However, we agreed that several actions that the council had proposed in their response to us could reduce the likelihood of similar delays occurring in the future. We found that the council did not act reasonably in communicating the circumstances to Mrs A's family or the other people attending the funeral, and so we upheld these aspects of Mrs C's complaint. We further found that the council had not responded reasonably to Mrs C's complaints. We found that they had not responded in line with their complaints procedure and that they had included contradictory information in their responses to Mrs C. We upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Ms C is a council tenant and she reported a number of incidents of her neighbour's anti-social behaviour to the council. Ms C complained that the council failed to address her complaints about her neighbour's anti-social behaviour within a reasonable timescale. The council advised Ms C they can only investigate the anti-social behaviour if they have corroborating evidence. Our investigation found that the council did investigate Ms C's complaints correctly. When Ms C raised further reported further incidents of anti-social behaviour the council obtained witness statements from other neighbours which corroborated Ms C's complaints. The council met with the neighbour and issued her with a written first warning. The neighbour subsequently moved out of her property. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201608278 as a PDF (10.91 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, a council tenant, complained that he had been experiencing odours in his house for several years and he believed that these odours were coming from his next door neighbour's house. Mr C complained that the council had not taken reasonable steps to investigate and stop the odour ingress. During the investigation, we carefully reviewed all the information provided by Mr C and the council. We found that the council had carried out a number of investigations and repairs, including installing air quality monitoring equipment and using a smoke machine to determine where the odours were ingressing, sealing stair treads and skirting boards, replastering walls, and repairing the solum (the area underneath the floorboards). Whilst we found that the council had taken reasonable action to investigate the odours and make repairs to the house, we recommended that the council consider whether there was any further action they could take as a smoke bomb test had revealed some ingress from one house into another.

Mr C complained that the council was allowing his neighbour, who had applied for planning permission and built a garage in his garden ground, to use the garage as residential accommodation. He complained that they should not allow his neighbour to do so and also that the building did not meet the required building standards. In responding to the complaint, the council had explained that although his neighbour had planning consent for a domestic garage, it was for his neighbour to decide how to use the building providing it was not a separate residential unit and its use was incidental to the existing use of the main house. They also confirmed that the neighbour had submitted a building warrant application, with supporting plans, and the building had been inspected by building control officers and a completion certificate issued. We were satisfied that the council were correct in that the use of the garage as overspill accommodation for family and friends was incidental to the existing dwelling house and was, therefore, a permitted use under the existing planning consent. We were also satisfied that the council did ensure that the correct process was followed in ensuring that the current building standards were met. As we did not find evidence of administrative or service failure in the way these matters were dealt with, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508203 as a PDF (11.21 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about the lack of action taken by the council when she reported noise and other nuisance or anti-social behaviour from her neighbour, a council tenant. Mrs C eventually moved out and rented her property out. Mrs C contacted the council to complain when her tenant began to experience the same anti-social behaviour. We found that the council had followed their anti-social behaviour policy. Specifically, when nuisance was reported, we found that the council had visited the property and tried to get statements from the person who reported the nuisance and / or neighbours. Each time they visited they left calling cards. The council offered to install noise monitoring equipment. This did not happen because people moved out or did not want the equipment installed. The council also asked people to make statements or to fill in diary records but these were not returned. The council also worked with the tenant who was causing the problem to try to improve the situation, for example by getting the tenant to agree her dog would be kept on a lead when exiting or entering the block and would not foul the drying green area. When the council did receive the evidence they needed they acted swiftly and issued a warning to the tenant in line with their policy, so we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508513 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C is a council tenant, as is her neighbour who lives above her. Ms C's complaint about the council arose from continuing noise issues she was experiencing with her neighbour. Ms C complained that the council had not acted reasonably in response to her ongoing reports of anti-social behaviour. After investigating, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. We found that the council had taken action following the various incidents she reported and that they had taken steps to find solutions, although it was acknowledged that these were perhaps not as successful as was hoped. During our investigation, the council advised us that they had taken the majority of actions available to them in relation to the noise issues. While we did not uphold the complaint, we did recommend that the council consider the remaining minority of actions to determine whether there were any further steps that would be appropriate to take. As Ms C had indicated at points during the case that she would consider moving, we also recommended that the council look at this and, if Ms C wishes, determine how a move can be facilitated. Finally, Ms C highlighted some concerns about the way her case had been written about in internal documents by council staff. We agreed that some of the terms used were inappropriate and made a further recommendation to address this.

Ms C's mother was admitted to a care home and the council provided Ms C's family with a breakdown of the charges for the care home and invoiced the family accordingly. Following an admission to hospital, Ms C's mother returned to the care home, however, Ms C's family received no further invoices for the care home fees until the council wrote to them in the following year explaining that, following a recent review, it had been identified that, due to an administrative error, no invoices had been raised for the care home fees. Due to the amount of fees outstanding, a charging order was placed on Ms C's mother's property. Ms C complained to us that the council had acted unreasonably by failing to ensure that invoices for the care home fees were issued at the correct time. Our investigation found that the council had made an administrative error in failing to invoice Ms C's family for the care home fees at the correct time – Ms C's mother's file was misfiled which led to her being omitted from the manual list of clients requiring yearly financial reassessment. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint. The council have recently introduced a system-generated automatic financial reassessment process which should prevent a similar situation occurring again in future. We also had some concerns about the way in which the council had handled Ms C's complaint. The council had referred Ms C's complaint to a charging review panel on more than one occasion. This led to delays in responding to Ms C's complaint. Ms C's correspondence was not fully answered and the council's final response to Ms C's complaint failed to inform her of her right to submit her complaint to our office as the final stage in the complaints procedure. In light of this, we made recommendations to the council.

Ms C complained that the council unreasonably terminated her former tenancy. She told us that when she moved out of her council property, she handed in her keys and an end of tenancy form. We found no evidence of this. The council said they did not receive the keys and form until two months after the date Ms C claimed. They ended the tenancy four weeks later, in line with the tenancy agreement Ms C had entered into. Related reading View Decision Report 201503004 as a PDF (10.75 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018